I am not confused. Then why are you are saying “Therapeutic compassion does not include enabling a violent offender, giving him access to a previous victim…” You are speaking as if the original poster is the man’s therapist when earlier you said she was definitely not. So you (apparently) are contradicting yourself. Either that or you are confusing the boundaries here. And I have read the ethical guidelines for my profession. I have taught them to interns for years. Then if you have taught ethics to interns you are aware of the ethical responsibilities social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists have to greater society. Apparently they run counter to your belief system. From your statement it appears that you do not agree with the sections I posted earlier from NASW codes. I could post the others from the APA and such but I think people get the point, they are similar in scope. I am clear in my mind as to what they say and do not say. They do not discuss what a therapist must "feel" in order to be ethical. I never sad that the NASW or any other professional codes of ethics mention feelings. What I discussed was the source of ethics. Feelings prompt ethics codes and Ethics codes create a framework as to how people in a certain group, in this case Mental Health professionals should behave. They define what they must "do". I agree. In my opinion, your interpetation is way too broad. Why? Ethic codes are by their very nature board. They are intended to be so. Were they narrow in scope they would be laws and regulations as well. Some ethics codes are eventually made into laws. Most regulations in states were at one time part of some codes of professional ethics for various professions, not just the mental health professions. You could assert a positive responsibility toward anyone at anytime with that kind of interpretation. I agree with you in that many codes are too broad in nature and need to be narrowed or tightened up a bit. I believe that many of the professional codes of ethics should be narrowed in scope, some made into state regulations so that there will be less confusion on professionals part and more clarity as to how professionals should behave. No disagreement with you there. The effect of this is making therapists responsible for any situation they encounter everywhere, all the time. This is simply not the case. I did not say therapists should be responsible for any situation they encounter. You are speaking in far too broad terms. Let's look at it from another angle: if she has any responsibility to the larger society, it was to the victim of this man's assault. What was she supposed to, ask him nicely to stop beating that woman up so they could discuss his terrible childhood? No. She should call the cops first. THEN maybe pull the woman off. Then let the proper law enforcement agencies take it from there. It’s their job. Theirs and the DA and the judge and jury (if there is one). The last time I checked, most social workers do not have criminology degrees. For many of the very same reasons that social workers don’t think people without mental health credentials should be doing counseling and psychotherapy, cops don’t like people enforcing laws - that’s their job. It’s a matter of professional training and personal safety. For the OP, for the victim and for the perp. Everyones safety. If anything, by acting to protect the victim, she honored that obligation. The OP is not protecting the victim if she interferes with who the courts and the DA and the judge feels is the best place for the man to get domestic counseling. The OP would be sabotaging the safety of the victim if she did that. And her own safety. It’s not the original poster’s obgliation to do that. She isn’t even the man’s or womans therapist for heavens sake. You see you keep confusing the boundaries one minute you are speaking as if the original poster is the woman's therapist and the next she is not the the womans (or man's) therapist. I'd like for you to go to the NASW and offer your interpretation of these events and their ethical standards and see how they respond. I'm pretty sure I can guess their response. I already know their response. I have had discussion with the head of the ethics department at NASW, Washington DC in regard to therapeutic boundaries, long ago. I still do not see how Monica, one of this man's victims in this scenario, now comes out as the perpetrator. I never called the OP the perpetrator. Never once. In my experience most cities have contractual arrangements or agreements as to which agencies they send court ordered people to. These are generally the best places for certain kinds of domestic counseling. It appears that the OP works at one of those facilities which is probably the best place for the man to go to, due the fact that the court wants him to go there. This being the case, the OP is asking the court to subvert their agreed to decision as to where to send certain people for certain issues and send him to a less appropriate agency without people who have decent training with these issues. Also since it seems pretty clear that the original poster works at such an agency and that she is reactive towards domestic abuse, which is another good reason to not get involved in this situation. I would also venture to suppose that since she is so very reactive about domestic abuse, that it may be wise for her to choose an area of specialty that is not so much tied into domestic abuse. Also it could very well be a hardship issue. If he has to go somewhere that is not court sanctioned, it may cost far more money than the man has. And who is going to pay for it? If the man is destitute as the OP implies he can’t pick money off trees that’s for sure. It may be so much of a hardship on him, he may skip town and not get the counseling he needs and years later may abuse someone else. Do you really want that to happen? If adequate resources are available at another agency, he should go there. But if they are not? Then what? Send him out of county? She would not have to face him. Who said anything about the man being required to have therapy with the OP? He can see another therapist at the other facility where the OP does not work. If the OP had her way he would be banned from a location that the OP does not even work at. He has to go to another agency for his court-ordered counseling? Too bad. You see this is a control issue on the OP’s part. I find it interesting that the original poster said: She believes we can make him have to get services at another agency… Not only is she trying to control where this man gets therapy but also If he gets therapy. There's no hardship involved here for him. How do you know this? How do you know about anything relating to hardship issues with this man, unless of course you have personal first hand knowledge or are involved with him in some way? …and even if there were, he was the cause of it. How do you know that? Did you see the altercation start from the very beginning? Maybe the woman hit or slapped her partner first? It’s not as common but also not uncommon for women to abuse men. Physically that is. Take Liza Minnelli for instance in her present divorce situation, her ex is claiming that he was slapped and hit by her. It’s not completely unfeasible that the woman started this fight. It takes two to start a fight. Maybe she went off on him for coming home drunk? Granted Men are usually the aggressors but unless the original poster saw the fight from the very beginning, she would have absolutely no way of knowing what truly happened. He created this situation, not Monica. . You don’t know that for sure. In family therapy, we refer to this process as "punctuating the sequence". He is directly responsible for the situation he finds himself in. How do you know? How can you say that for sure? There are so many men on death row for committing crimes they never committed. Accused of rape and then 20 years later DNA proves they were innocent all along. This is irrefutable fact. So many men have been murdered on death row for crimes they never did. Many of them were falsely accused by women with a grudge. This is your professional problem here, you assume that worst. He is the cause. You keep saying this over and over and this indicates to me that you for some reason are reactive about domestic violent situations. People who are reactive about domestic violence should not become professionally (or otherwise) involved in domestic violence situations; it would indicate that such people have an axe to grind. People in these professions, as difficult as it is, need to take a calm cool headed approach to these offenders. Lest they allow their professional judgments be impaired, It is unhealthy for both the therapists and the people required to get counseling if professional judgments are biased . As you should know as a mental health professional, the vast majority of alcoholics and drug abusers are If he has to go elsewhere in town, so what? So what? These sick people will always come back to haunt us if they are treated nastily. Many people in prison come back out into society and commit the very same crimes, many of them because they were treated so badly in prison. Treating a perpetrator like a piece of trash is not going to help him or the community in which he has to live in when he gets out of either jail or a counseling program or probation or what ever he has to go through. If the OP goes through with her demands, this will be like “branding him” like a scarlet letter. Just like the people did in Salem when they branded women for being witches or devil worship. He is not "seeking help" anyway. He is court-ordered. He can be court-ordered somewhere else. Yes and that is for the judge and the DA and the cops to decide. Not social workers. And not for the OP to come to her boss and have her boss manipulate the DA or the judge because they have a contract with the court system. That’s called behind the scene manipulation and that wrong. She did not give up her rights to personal safety because she's a therapist. And she's entitled to her feelings, regardless of what you (or I) think of them. Yes she is entitled to her feelings, I can’t disagree with you there. Feelings and behavior are two different things, and if everyone acted on their feelings there would be many more problems in the world then there are now.
There is a very good reason why codes of ethics are written broad in scope. They promote a healthy discussion amongst people so that they can come into agreement as to what is good and what is not so good behavior.
You are getting confused. All I said was that she should not be interjecting herself into this court situation regarding the mans domestic counseling. I never said that the OP was perpertrating a crime against the man. The OP is not a cop, at least from what I gelaned in her post. Social workers are not cops. They are not DA’s. They are not judges. She also should not be trying to manipulate the court system and interfering with the mans court ordered requirement to get domestic counseling at the most appropriate facility the court system deems appropriate.
She should not have to face this man at work.
not violent. This also applies to schizophrenics.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.